Building up the Knowledge Economy Through the European Higher Education Reform in Romania (1999 – 2010)

Introduction

       The paper investigates the Higher Education reform in Romania driven by the Bologna Process and the way this reform is sustaining the development of the national knowledge economy. Romania adhered to Bologna Process in 1999, before becoming a European Union member (2007), in a period when the echoes of the communist era were not faded yet. Despite the historical model of state-centered control, and elite academic orientated system, Romania embraced the Bologna Process focused on building up higher education studies able to enhance the skills required by an economy based on knowledge. The current paper intends to explore if higher education reform is sustaining the development of the knowledge economy, looking at the perspectives of different stakeholders.  

The European Union and the Knowledge-Based Economy

       The development of the European Union led to the free movement of people, products and services within the internal market created. In order to be globally competitive and to enhance the economic growth, the European Union aimed to create strategies to develop the human capital and enhance free movement of talent from one country to another, within the Union. The White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness, and Employment (European Commission, Secretariat - General, 1993) emphasizes the importance of becoming globally competitive while addressing unemployment and developing the human capital through lifelong learning.  Later, within the Lisbon Strategy (2000), it is stated that the European Union should aim to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy on the global level by 2010 (Commission of the European Communities, 2000).

       The knowledge economy as defined within the Amsterdam Treaty (Commission of the European Communities, 1997) is that economy based on information and communication technology (ICT), supported by high knowledge skills. The knowledge economy is usually understood as an economy based on technologic development, sustained by knowledge-based industries and highly skilled workforce (Brinkley, I., Lee, N., 2007). According to the OECD (2005), the knowledge-based economy is defined as an expression of economies dependent on intellectual capabilities and on the ability to apply the knowledge within a business environment. The reliance of the knowledge economy on ideas and application of technology more than physical skills is also recognized by the World Bank (2003). Other authors (Peters et al., 2010) consider the knowledge economy as being derived from informational capitalism and cognitive capitalism, placing it strictly in a capitalism context, or they are linking it intimately to the booming ICT development (Guruz, 2011). For Guruz (2011), the knowledge economy is based on information and the workforce should be highly qualified and able to make decisions based on information analysis. He also agrees that the knowledge economy is reinforced by student mobility and higher education qualifications. On the same line, the World Bank (2003) recognizes that the knowledge economy is enhanced and sustained by lifelong learning and it emphasizes the need of developing the education and training programs that prepare the learner for a global knowledge economy. Mundy (2016) argues that the economic growth is linked to the education expansion and is driven by the skills and knowledge of graduates, outlining that a fast educational growth leads to or is simultaneous with rapid economic growth.  

       Aiming to become a competitive knowledge economy, the European Union through the Lisbon Strategy is continuing and reinforcing ideas from the Sorbonne Declaration (1998) and Bologna Declaration (1999) which underlined the imperative necessity of reforming the higher education on a European level. It is also recognized the role of lifelong learning in building up the economic growth and the need for a higher education system able to produce highly qualified employees whose qualifications and prior learning to be internationally recognized (Tomusk, 2007). Thus, following the Sorbonne Declaration (1998), in 1999 the Ministers of Education from 29 European countries signed the Bologna Declaration. This was the foundation stone for the creation of a European Area in Higher Education, based on international cooperation and academic mobility, able to sustain the development of an economy based on knowledge and innovation.

 The Bologna Process, European and Global Movement.

       In 1998 the Education Ministers of France, Germany, Italy, and United Kingdom signed the Sorbonne Declaration through which they committed to harmonizing the European Higher Education systems to facilitate the mobility of students and staff for study and research purpose, as well as the promotion of qualifications recognized by the international job market (European Higher Education Area Members, 1998).  The basis of the European Higher Education Area became better outlined in the following year (1999) when the Bologna Declaration was signed. All the ministerial meetings and agreements that followed up the Bologna Declaration are known as the Bologna Process.

       The main aims of the Bologna Process are the creation of a quality higher education space which facilitates the free movement of students and academic staff, as well as building up the human capital for an international and dynamic job market. These were to be achieved through the adoption of a higher education qualification system recognized by all the members, structured in undergraduate and postgraduate level, and a close collaboration of for an effective quality assurance system, implemented on a national level. The Process itself meant the reform of higher education, new legislative acts and the review of local educational principles to recognize a current society based on knowledge.

       Later, the Praga Communique (2001) is enhancing the objectives stated in the Bologna Declaration and emphasize on the importance of lifelong learning and the involvement of universities and students in the implementation of Bologna Process (National Education Minister, 2001).

       On the European level the importance of higher education and lifelong learning for the development of knowledge economy was clearly stated in 2001, however, it can be argued that on a national level this idea existed prior the Bologna Process. For instance, in the United Kingdom, the Dearing Report (1997), discussed by Tomlinson (2005), recognized the higher education and lifelong learning as a means to achieve economic success. The report argues that for the international competitiveness to be achieved the intellectual capital needs to develop.  It is also acknowledged the need of recognition of prior studies, reflected in the possibility of credit transfer from one institution to another.

       The Bologna Process does not only foster regional integration and economic growth but through its follow up meetings it creates new opportunities to disseminate best practice and to address problems difficult to deal with on national level (Torotcoi, 2017). The Process called for close collaboration between European countries to build up a transnational platform, but it was adopted also by non-members of European Union, such as Norway and Switzerland and Romania which was not yet a member of European Union. The Bologna Process had a wide echo worldwide, as in 2015 has 48 participating countries, from which 19 non-EU members (Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Liechtenstein, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Norway, Russia, Serbia, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, Vatican City and Israel and Kosovo with observer status). The internationalization of the European higher education reforms initiated by the Bologna Process is confirmed in the Statement of the Fifth Bologna Policy Forum (2018) attended by representants of 76 countries. The Statement confirms that similar reforms were adopted by countries in South East Asia, Africa, and Latin America to enhance quality and mobility between regions. As agreed by Gita Steiner-Khamsi and Florian Waldow (2012) the Bologna Process is a clear case of global policy borrowing in education.

Bologna Process in Romania

      The implementation of the Bologna Process aimed to harmonize the higher education in the European area, but inevitably, the diversity and the multitude of systems and national curricula led to divergences in the understanding and implementation of the reforms. For example, Norway filtered the policy and adopted it to its own existent systems (Tomusk, 2007), while countries as Romania, Bulgaria, and Moldavia implemented the policy without taking much in consideration the national specific and existing structures (Appadurai, 1996). In regard to Bologna Process, Dobbins (2011) concluded that the policy borrowing in Romania was easily embraced as a result of the national political trends followed at that time by the Education Minister, Andrei Marga. The policy-making process in Romania post-communism was highly influenced by Dobbins' views (2011), by a visible orientation toward western policies, having as a model, particularly British and American practices. In this context, the Bologna Process encountered in Romania favorable grounds in terms of cross-national attraction, hence the following stages of policy-borrowing (decision-making, implementation, and internalization) being easily completed (Phillips, Ochs, 2004). In the same time, the policy borrowing could not remain independent of the power of the past (Brogger, 2014) marked by the communist ideology.

       A main challenge arises while implementing the higher education reforms were linked to the adoption of the cycles system with three years of studies for the undergraduate level which was not found as appropriate for all the programmes. In many European countries (Guruz, 2011) including Romania, a first degree achieved in three years is considered too short especially for some specialties like medicine and architecture. Moreover, it is recognized that the reform itself implicate a shift in the curricula (Brogger, 2014), from the traditional theoretical approach towards learning outcomes, applicable knowledge, skills and competence required by the new qualification framework.

       Another key element of the reform is the European Credit Transfer System which should facilitate the students’ mobility through the recognition of prior studies. The European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) credits imposed by the Bologna reforms should have moved the subject-based teaching towards a more integrated, holistic teaching, from subject areas to core areas defined by own learning outcomes. They should reflect the coursework undertaken for each module and programme, being a valuable assessment tool. This did not happen in Romania, where similar with other countries (Wutting, 2011) the current use of ECTS credits is superficial, and they are not used in the assessment, but more as a formality (Tomusk, 2007).

       Due to the Bologna Process reform, the higher-education stakeholders benefited by the new academic mobility facilitated by the Erasmus and Leonardo Da Vinci programmes. Even if Romanian students prefer western European destinations for studies, the Berlin Communique (2003) and Bucharest Communique (2012) show  Romania signing bilateral agreements in regard to students’ mobility with different EHEA states and non-EHEA states such as China, Korea, Egypt, India, Nigeria, and Turkmenistan. (UEFISCDI, 2013)

       Regarding the efforts directed towards developing a strong European knowledge economy, the Romanian Minister of Education assumed the responsibility toward students’ employability, stating that efforts are made to improve the collaboration between universities, students and employers, through developing programs that will enhance innovation, research and the entrepreneurship (ANOSR, 2012). The National Authority for Qualifications (ANC) facilitates the European harmonization of qualifications, yet according to ANOSR (2012) an important percentage of students (over 40%) are not at all aware about its existence and roles of National Authority for Qualifications and only 12% of student organizations are aware of the role of ANC and students' involvement.

Bologna Process and the Knowledge Economy. 

Academic Staff Perspective

In Romania, a country that barely left behind the communist system (in December 1989) and embraced the democratic ideals, the Higher Education system faced the need to embrace the reform (triggered by the Bologna Process) to align itself to international standards. From the traditional mission of teaching and growing characters and intellectuals, the academia had to straighten its efforts to form individuals able to contribute to the developing knowledge economy.

Ten years after adhering to Bologna Process (2009), according to the Romanian Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (ARACIS) statistics, 90% of the academic staff consider that the universities through the programs they deliver on graduate and undergraduate level help the students to acquire the competencies needed in the workplace and facilitate the access to employment when graduating (67%). Same report (ARACIS, 2009) states that 70% of the academic staff consider that the degree programs offer the skills and knowledge required by employers, precisely: the ability to synthesize information, analysis, ICT skills and the ability to argue a point of view.

The above positive perception related to the results of the reforms in relation to building up the knowledge economy is not fully shared by Geambasu, Szekely, and Tonk (2011) in their research completed in seven universities of a large Romanian academic city, Cluj-Napoca. Based on the interviews performed, Geambasu, Szekely, and Tonk conclude that the academic staff considers that the implementation of the three years undergraduate program lead to the congestion of the timetable according to which the students needing to assimilate a curriculum created for four years program. Regarding the content, it is recognized that the undergraduate curriculum is general and theoretical, while the postgraduate studies are very specialized, preparing the students for scientific careers and research. This paper does not offer information on employability and applied skills acquired by the students from lecturers’ perspective.

The academic staff perception as captured by Geambasu, Szekely, and Tonk cannot be considered relevant on the national level, as their research was drawn from a small number of universities. However, within their conclusion it can distinguish the traditional approach of higher education studies, specific to pre-Bologna period, when the higher education was mainly for elites, leading to a scientific oriented career, in contrast with the very positive report given by ARACIS.

 

Bologna Process and the Knowledge Economy. 

Students Perspective

       Two years after the Bologna Process initial deadline (2012), The National Alliance of Student Organizations in Romania (ANOSR) undertook an investigation of students’ perspective on the implementation of Bologna Process and higher education system reforms in Romania. The investigation cannot be considered representative on the national level, as the data represent the views of student representatives from 20% of Romanian universities yet is one of the very few official publications showing students’ perception on the implementation of the Bologna Process in Romania. The other publications offering statistics related to students’ perceptions on Bologna Process are the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education report (ARACIS, 2009) and the investigation of Bologna Process impacts on master degree programmes in Cluj’s universities completed by Geambasu, Szekely, and Tonk (2011).

       The data collected by ANOSR (2012) shows that the employers are involved in curriculum development in a very small proportion or not at all, as 85% from the universities represented in the study are not involving the employers. On the same topic the ARACIS study (2009) shows that 42% of respondent students answer that their university facilitated the link with employers, 39% declared that their university organized an internship program and 57% said that the university offered work placement opportunities. This data is in contrast with ANOSR results, according to which 82% of respondents are not aware of ways of employers' involvement. However, the ANOSR concludes that most of the universities do not have yet an organized system for providing the 30% work placement required by law.

       Investigating the research activities linked to relevant industries, ANOSR deduces that the private sector is not involved in industry-related innovation and research projects (with 56% of respondents sharing this opinion). In addition to this is commented that the changes made in the curriculum as a result of the Bologna reforms are superficial, based on the interest of the academic body and based on the traditional conservative attitude. Within the ANOSR study (2012) 38% of respondents consider that the economic background and current workforce requirements are not considered in curriculum development of their qualification, while the rest of respondents consider that the universities have a very low interest in aligning the curriculum to market needs or in involving the employers. About the skills acquired at the end of the qualification 76% of the respondents consider the skills somehow useful while 15% of respondents consider them totally useless. The statistic related to the same topic in the ARACIS report (2009) shows that 66% of students consider that the subjects studied underline the practical aspects while 42% consider that the program of studies is more theoretical than applied.

Moreover, considering the employability skills acquired during the studies, ANOSR investigation shows that 77% of the institutions represented in the study do not address employability and transferable skills, 85% universities do not address social competences (teamwork, leadership), and 68% of respondents do not consider that the program studied is meeting their needs of acquiring practical skills and abilities required in the workplace. The ARACIS report is presenting a slightly lower figure, showing only 50% of students considering that the program studied help them to acquire the knowledge and skills required in the workplace. 

The above results are reflected in the research undertaken in Cluj-Napoca by Geambasu, Szekely, and Tonk (2011). 69% of the students participating to this research consider that the curriculum studied do not offer skills and knowledge relevant for the workplace and the graduates are not feeling prepared for the needs and requirements of the workforce market.

Bologna Process and the Knowledge Economy. 

Employer Perspective

The employer perspective on the developments of the higher education qualification after the implementation of Bologna Process reforms are found only in the ARACIS report (2009) referring to the statistical distribution and the quality of higher education system in Romania.

The investigation on employers’ perspective underlined three factors impacting the graduates’ selection process: the reputation of the university (despite this, 40% of the employers consider that the bachelor’s degree does not assure the quality of the graduate), the work experience (is important to be specific for the job and completed in Romania) and the interview performance. Furthermore, from the employers' perspective, the graduate should be able to demonstrate the following skills: teamwork, planning, organizational skills, work ethics, communication, and ICT skills. In terms of knowledge related to job and industry, 51% of employers consider that the graduates have more theoretical knowledge that practical skills required.

As seen above the employers’ views are do not demonstrate the outcomes desired by the reform, and what it is more worrying is that 51% of employers prefer to employ alumni of 4/5 years programs and not the Bologna system ones.

Conclusions

In the light of the above, it can be concluded that in Romania the implementation of the higher education reforms triggered by Bologna Process is not necessarily sustaining the development of the knowledge economy, as desired within the Lisbon Strategy. The analysis of the sources cited in this paper lead to the conclusion that the knowledge economy development cannot be sustained by the higher education system if there are multiple perception gaps related to key issues such as the relevance of the curriculum for the related industry and the skills required for employment.

In Romania, it can be identified a clear gap between the academic staff’s perceptions and students’ perceptions of how the educational process prepares the graduate for the workforce market. The most relevant (for the national level) source cited (ARACIS, 2009) shows that around 40% more academic staff than students consider that the program of study offers the knowledge and skills required in the workplace.

Another gap distinguished is between academic staff perceptions’, students’ perceptions and employers’ perception regarding the degrees achieved. The degree is considered a guaranty of a graduate’s qualification by various stakeholders in significantly different proportions: 89% of academic staff, 69% of students and only 40% of employers (ARACIS 2009).

 Probably the most important gap identified is between the skills recognized as essential for employment by the academic staff and the essential skills required by employers. The employers are not only unsatisfied with the level of alumni’s employability skills, but the two stakeholders have completely different views about the essential skills required. The academic staff is convinced that the essential skills for employment consist of the ability to synthesize information, analysis, ICT skills and the ability to argue a point of view. In contrast, employers want alumni able to work in a team, to have planning and organizational skills, work ethics, communication, and ICT skills.

       Overall, the poor absorption of alumni on the workforce market identified by Wutting (2011) in other countries implementing Bologna reforms can be extended to Romania. Brine (2006) and Walby (2002) stated that good educational qualification is not the premise of a good job, and often we may find highly skilled workers on positions for which they are over qualified. Moreover, Brine (2006) found that only 24% of the European Union workforce was highly qualified in 2003 and concluded that the knowledge economy is developed in limited areas such as northern states and specific urban areas. The main stakeholders striving to build up a strong economy sustained by highly skilled employees shall understand that the efforts for widening participation in Higher Education must be in synergy with the market movements. The higher education curriculum which in Romania proved to be resistant to change must reflect the needs of the knowledge economy on a national and regional level, otherwise, the high-knowledge skilled learners will feel useless in a dynamic economy for which they do not feel prepared.

References

1.   ANOSR (2012) Implementarea Procesului Bologna in Romania, Perspectiva Studentilor [The Implementation of Bologna Process in Romania, Students’ Perspective]. Bucharest: ANOSR. Available at: http://www.anosr.ro/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Studiu-Procesul-Bologna-2012-Revizuit.pdf (Accessed: 25 November 2018)

2.   Appadurai, A. (1996) Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press

3.   ARACIS (2009) Distributii Statistice, Interpretari si Optiuni Privind Starea Calitatii in Invatamantul Superior din Romania [Statistical Distributions, Interpretations and Options Regarding the Quality Status of Higher Education in Romania]. Bucharest: ARACIS. Available at:  http://media.hotnews.ro/media_server1/document-2010-10-8-7906699-0-starea-calitatii-invatamantul-superior.pdf (Accessed: 25 November 2018)

4.   Brine, J. (2006) Lifelong learning and the knowledge kconomy: those that know and those that do not – the discourse of European Union. British Educational Research Journal. 32:5, pp. 649 – 665

5.   Brinkley, K. and Lee, N. (2006) The Knowledge Economy in Europe. A Report Prepared for the 2007 EU Spring Council. London: Work Foundation. Available at: https://www.secouncils.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/_publications/The_Knowledge_Economy_in_Europe_2007.pdf (Accessed: 07 January 2019)

6.   Brogger, K. (2014) The ghosts of higher education reform: on the organisational processed surrounding policy borrowing. Globalisation, Societies and Education. 12:4, pp. 520 – 541

7.   Commission of the European Communities (2000) Presidency conclusions: Lisbon European Council, 23 and 24 March 2000. Available at:  www.europa.eu.int/council/off/conc.mar00_en.pdf (Accessed: 12 December 2018)

8.   Commission of the European Communities (1997) Treaty of Amsterdam. Official Journal. 97, pp. 1 – 144

9.   Dobbins, M. (2011) Explaining different pathways in higher education policy in Romania and the Czech Republic. Comparative Education. 47:2, pp. 223 - 245. Available at:  https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03050068.2011.555116 (Accessed: 01 January 2019)

10.               EHEA (2018) Ministerial Declaration and Communiques. Statement of the Fifth Bologna Policy Forum. Available at: http://www.ehea.info/cid101765/ ministerial-conference-paris-2018.html (Accessed: 26 November 2018)

11.               European Commission, Secretariat - General (1993) Publication. Commission White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness, and Employment. Available at: https://www.cvce.eu/content/publication/1997/10/13/b0633a76-4cd7-497f-9da1-4db3dbbb56e8/publishable_en.pdf (Accessed: 26 November 2018)

12.               European Higher Education Area (n.d.) How Does the Bologna Process Work? Available at: http://www.ehea.info/pid34247/how-does-the-bologna-process-work.html (Accessed: 26 November 2018)

13.               European Higher Education Area Members (1998) Sorbonne Joint Declaration on Harmonisation of the Architecture of the European Higher Education System. Paris. Available at: http://www.ehea.info/cid100203/sorbonne-declaration-1998.html (Accessed: 03 November 2018)

14.               Geambasu, R, Szekely, T., and Tonk, M. (2011) Politica educationala in Uniunea Europeana. Impactul si consecintele procesului Bologna asupra programelor de masterat la universitatile clujene [Educational policy in the European Union. The Impact and Consequences of the Bologna Process on Masters Programs at the Cluj Universities]. Colloquium Politicum. 2:1, pp. 49 – 68. Available at:  http://www.bcut.ro/colloquiumpoliticum/?en_volume-2-(2011)-issue1(3),20 (Accessed: 25 November 2018)

15.               Guruz, K. (2011) Higher Education and International Student Mobility in the Global Knowledge Economy (2nd edn.). New York: State University of New York Press.

16.               Mundy, K., et al. (2016). The Handbook of Global Education Policy. Chichester, UK: Wiley Blackwell.

17.               National Education Minister (2001) Towards the European Higher Education Area. Communique of the meeting of European Ministers in Charge of Higher Education in Prague on May 19^th2001. Available at: https://www.edu.ro/sites/default/files/u39/Praga%202001.pdf  (Accessed: 10 December 2018)

18.               OECD (2005) Glossary of statistical terms. Knowledge-based economy. Available at:  https://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=6864 (Accessed: 07 January 2019)

19.               Peters, M., Britez, R., and Bulut, E. (2010) Cybernetic Capitalism, Informationalism and Cognitive Labour. Urbana-Champaigne: School of Education, University of Illinois.

20.               Phillips, D., and Ochs, K. (2004) Educational Policy Borrowing: Historical Perspectives. Oxford: Symposium Books.

21.               Spring, J. (2001) Globalisation and Educational Rights. An Intercivilizational Analysis. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

22.               Steiner-Khamsi, G., and Waldow, F. (2012) Policy Borrowing and Lending in Education (1st edn.). New York: Routledge.

23.               Tomlinson, S. (2005) Education in a Post-Welfare Society (2^nd edn.). Berkshire, England: Open University Press.

24.               Tomusk, V., et al. (2007) Creating the European Area of Higher Education. Voices from Periphery. New York: Springer - Verlag New York Inc.

25.               Torotcoi, S. (2017) Politics and policies of higher education: policy transfer and the Bologna process. Journal of Research in Higher Education. 1:2, pp. 6-29. DOI:10.24193

26.               Walby, S. (2002) Gender and the New Economy: Regulation or Deregulation? Work, Life and Time in the New Economy. London: London School of Economics. Available at: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/sociology/people/swdocs/Gender%20and% 20the%20new%20economy.pdf (Accessed: 10 December 2018)

27.               Wuttig, S., et al. (2011) The Bologna Process: Stocktaking and Prospects. Available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/studies (Accessed: 10 December 2018)

28.               World Bank (2003) Lifelong Learning in the Global Knowledge Economy: Challenges for Developing Countries. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Publications.